The flag of the United States, lowered in surrender

I’m about 10 hours early on this, but it was on this day, 150 years ago, at 2:30 p.m, that Sumter surrendered…

After the garrison flag had ripped (a couple of days prior to the bombardment), this smaller storm flag was flying over Sumter. Hat-tip to reader Roderick Gainer (who passed along some background info about the flag, having learned about it through his colleague, Les Jensen)

… and the flag of the United States was lowered from atop a U.S. military fort.

Now, this is where I’m breaking-off from the type of posts that I’ve done for the past few days. I’ve kept it straight-forward, giving you images and little commentary. After all, it’s really a time of reflection, and sometimes some of us like a little quiet, without the commentary, at times like these.

You may have also noticed that I opted for a black backdrop over the past few days. Don’t worry, it will go back to the previous background color… but my reason for doing this type of background is to remember that the 150th anniversary of Sumter is no cause for celebration (or maybe, considering the resulting freedom to enslaved people, it is reason to celebrate) . While many of us are thrilled that we’ve made it to the 150th to see this time in our history, and to be a part of a time in which we can reflect on our history during such a major anniversary, the anniversary of the Sumter bombardment is a time, also, to remember that, at this time 150 years ago, nearly 650,000 Americans were still alive, who would not be around in a matter of 4 short years. Truly tragic. I had relatives from both sides… most of them Southern, whether they wore blue or gray… who died in these four years.

So, what is it, about Sumter, that strikes something in us, and why do we react so differently, each of us, to the event? These are the types of questions that, I think, we should be conscious of during the Sesquicentennial. Sure, I enjoy hearing the straight-on history, a detailing of the facts… traditional history… but I think there’s more to it than this. I think it’s also valuable to understand how we see ourselves through the window of the past and/or how we see the past through us.

You may have taken notice, for example, of how I titled this post. I did it on purpose, to make a point.

I see the bombardment of Sumter as something more personal. No, I had no ancestors there. Still, I have ancestors who were, within months of this bombardment, wearing gray… and yet, I find it bothersome to think about a U.S. military installation being attacked, and the colors of the United States being lowered in surrender. Maybe I’m more sensitive to this because I was in the military myself. Still, I know perfectly well that there are others who have served, who may not see it this way… odd. Nonetheless, this is part of my point. How do we look at the past through our modern lenses… our modern perspectives… and how does that influence (taint?) the way we relate to others the story of the past, as filtered through us, by what has influenced us in the course of our lives? This is part of what I mean by asking, “how do we see the past through us?”

Add to that how some see themselves defined by a history in which they took no part. How do many folks define who they are through their ancestors who wore gray, or blue… or neither. Why do people do this? What drives this longing to connect with the past through this vision? How can someone who lived so long ago, influence someone, so much, today… especially when we can know so very little of these people of the past?

To some folks, all of this matters little (or none). Life has moved on, and history is just that… the past. But then, you wouldn’t be here, reading this, if it didn’t matter to you, in some way…

And so we begin our respective journeys… possibly very personal, and very individual… through the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War. Whether you’re a regular here, or new to the blog, thanks for making Cenantua’s Blog a part of your journey.

I happened across the NPS site too and my take was that the flag that fell was the garrison flag and the one that was put up by Sgt. Hart was the storm flag. And it’s interesting that you should describe the sesquicentennial as a journey. It certainly does feel that way.

If focusing on one small quote (often used out of context) defines the depth of your knowledge as to the causes of the war, good luck with that. By the way, pretty convenient of you not to take notice of the fact that slaveholders were quite conscious of the potential losses to their pocketbooks if “Black Republicans had their way”. I’ve been providing plenty of information from Southern newspapers clearly exhibiting their worries about the threat to slavery and the economy, and yet you’ve been curiously quiet the entire time. I wonder why that is…

Understanding how difficult this must be for you, Ken, I’ll recap, and, remember, these aren’t my words, but those who were Southerners and saw the writing on the wall… losses to their pocketbooks, but, not because of tariffs, but because of the threat they felt seemed imminent to the economic and social comfort brought to them by the institution of slavery. I’ll make it as easy as possible… here are just four of the most recent posts I developed, based on information I found in Southern newspapers from the time… I’m sure you’ll read each and every one with awe and fascination… here, here, here, and here.

If Lincoln would have let the whole thing go, there would be no South as you know it… or at least as identified on a map showing the states of secession after May 1861. For starters, say goodbye to the upper South.

Robert; I read the four articles that you recommended and I was neither awed or fascinated as This is just one mans opinion that writes for a newspaper. WE have the same type of newspaper writers today who give their opinion and expect everyone to believe what they say. One hundred and fifty years after the war we know that slavery only played a small part in this war. We know that it was really unprofitable and that ninety cents of every dollar earned went to the upkeep of the slave. WE also know that slavery would have ended on the first day the tractor was introduced.

Well, Ken, for starters, as for the “awed and fascinated” remark, perhaps I would have been less inclined to be so snarky, had you actually commented about something I discussed in the blog post. Instead, you decided to be abruptly dismissive rather than offer thought in your comment. Incidentally, as your comment stands, it sounds rather like you justified the firing on a U.S. military garrison, with U.S. troops, through what you believe Lincoln said. Which brings us to the next thing… I wonder if you know who actually stated that Lincoln said this, and the circumstances (when, where, and why). What’s quite interesting is that, while you say that the newspaper articles reflect one man’s opinion, you apparently don’t apply the same rule to points that you try to make. In fact, how many men were present when Lincoln said what you believe he did? I’ll await your answer.

Next, I find it interesting that you mentioned slavery, and yet, not once did I bring it up in the post. So, since you want to go down that road…

The four posts that I pointed you to were not all written by a “newspaper writer”. Baldwin’s comments are what they are… and he was a delegate to the Virginia Convention. The “Submission is Ruin” piece comes to us from… a lengthy discussion on the floor of the Virginia Convention, and, having seen the actual transcription… it follows quite well what was said… stats and all were used in the discussion in the convention. There’s no newspaper spin there, however, the newspapers that used it (in Richmond and Staunton) were quite happy to reprint… both being firmly in favor of secession. In fact, three out of four of those pieces came from pro-secession papers, printed with the intent to convince others that slavery was being threatened. The fourth piece (the Baldwin piece) came from a Pro-Union paper… albeit reflective of those with slaveholding interests who believed that the only way to preserve the institution was to side with the Union.

“One hundred and fifty years after the war we know that slavery only played a small part in this war. We know that it was really unprofitable and that ninety cents of every dollar earned went to the upkeep of the slave. WE also know that slavery would have ended on the first day the tractor was introduced.”

No, there’s no “we” in it. You, and a specific few are of that opinion… no more. You also show, in this paragraph, that you selectively ignore the words of the Southerners who were present in the days leading up to secession. To those who were concerned about the future of slavery (and not necessarily slaveholders), and the threat that the Republican president posed to the institution, slavery was a very large and real issue in the days leading to secession. While pro-secessionists made it clear in the ordinances of secession, many a pro-Unionists also made it clear in their expressions of belief as well. One side believed it would best be preserved through secession, while the other believed that adhering to the Union was the only way, and that secession meant certain ruin, plain and simple. Your tractor comment, by the way, is simply absurd, and lacking substantiation.

Do I believe that what I say here will change your opinion? No, not at all, but at least I addressed each of the points you attempted to make, with a bit more substance.